who, at his request, will remain nameless, as will his church and the hierarch of whom he speaks. The lion's share of it is as follows:
Chris, I've been following with interest your own blog on all things Anglican, and I have to say my own journey has taken, not a detour, but a little bit of a re-calibrating.
To which I replied:
Good to hear from you!
As it turns out, I'm doing a bit of recalibrating myself as I'm taking a second look at the English Reformation's Lutheran legacy, and how that may have contributed not only to the structure of the Articles (and the content of some of them, even after the Edwardian revisions), but also to monarchical resistance to further Calvinization of the formularies (e.g., Elizabeth's smackdown of the Lambeth Articles), the end result being that our formularies remain solidly Augustinian but only mildly-to-moderately Reformed. I've had some experiences with some Truly Reformed Anglicans on a certain Facebook page, and these experiences have created in me a desire to hold that kind of Anglicanism at more of an arm's length from me, despite my own leanings toward Reformed theology in some areas. As I review this stuff, it seems the Lutherans made more sense, for example, on the use of images in the church.
I'm happy to read what you wrote about the Reformation and your commitment to Augustine's doctrines of Grace. If you haven't read it yet, see George Tavard's Justification: An Ecumenical Study. Now, granted, Tavard was a somewhat liberal Roman Catholic scholar, but this little book of his is a pretty compelling argument about how Luther's doctrine of justification was simply the expected fruition of Augustine's doctrines of grace -- which are at the end of the day nothing more than Paul's and the other apostles' doctrines of grace. Tavard shows how all this developed in the historical context of the struggle between Augustinianism and resurgent Pelagianism in the West. (Our old Archbishop of Canterbury Thomas Bradwardine was a player in this struggle, shortly before the Reformation.) All this is to say that it is VITAL to be an Augustinian. Even J.B. Mozley got that, though he still recoiled from some of the implications of the doctrine of predestination. In his book, A Treatise on the Augustinian Doctrine of Predestination, he argues that if we have to err, we MUST err in the direction of Augustine and not Pelagius. C.B. Moss and other high churchers argue similarly. I'm afraid His Grace . . . is representative of Anglo-Catholics who err in the direction of Pelagius.
I also agree with what you had to say about the complementary nature of sola fide and the sacraments. There again is an area where classical Anglicanism follows Lutheran theology more closely than Reformed theology. And I also agree with your assessment about Scriptural ignorance among Anglo-Catholics, though it could be argued that such ignorance is confined to that circle. I've seen examples among even the Evangelicals, which is why the cry of the Reformation - Ad Fontes!! -- is applicable everywhere.
I have met one other Anglo-Catholic who is an Augustinian and therefore believes in the biblical doctrine of predestination. St. Bernard, a thoroughgoing predestinarianism, is one of his heroes. I have to believe that there are more such Anglo-Catholics out there if there are two. May their tribe increase.
All this goes to show the fundamental accuracy of Nockles' analysis. "Anglo-Catholicism" isn't uniform in belief and practice, and some who call themselves Anglo-Catholics are amenable to the truths recovered by the Protestant Reformation.